starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Forum:Strategy policy updates
This wiki was founded by lore fans more than strategy fans. As a result, the strategy side of things has been neglected. We do have a policy at StarCraft Wiki:Strategy policy but it's pretty short. Anyone interested in updating it, please post proposals here. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 15:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC) I have a couple of ideas of what such a policy should look like. First off, by current rules people are only supposed to post such "fan content" on their own talk pages or linked to their account, which would be nearly impossible to actually find. Valid analysis on the core gameplay aspects of the Starcraft games should not be considered the same as fan content/fan fiction, and should be considered fully independent of the StarCraft Wiki:Fan content policy. There should be a listing page, perhaps called the Strategy Guide List, linked to the main "cover page" of each Starcraft game in an easy to find location, with sections broken out for each one. Player-made strategy guides should be entered into the relevant section. With this easy-to-find list, links to individual strategy guides are NOT to be made in any specific unit page. Strategy Guides should be divided into two types: General and Specific. General strategy guides are for techniques that are commonly known among Real Time Strategy games and therefore are not unique to any particular Starcraft game, and also usually won't need specific references. The Strategy Guide List page should have a separate section for these at the top, and could still be considered "public" pages open to broad edit and following all standard posting rules. Reference links within a specific guide to Starcraft units that are deemed quite adept at that particular strategy are fine. Examples of such general strategies: Rushing, kiting/dancing, walling, choke-points, ambushing, turtling, hit-and-run raiding, continuous harassment, meat-shield. Specific strategy guides are guides that are only relevant to Starcraft games due to the unique nature of Starcraft units and structures; one key example is a specific unit/structure build sequence for a PvP map such as the Zerg 7Pool. Such guides must be posted in the relevant section of the Strategy Guide List page for the game they relate to. All Specific strategy guides must conform to the following rules: * All language used in the entire Guide must fully conform to the Terms of Service * All Strategy Guides must not be based off of custom player-made content. They must be 100% valid against one or more specific Starcraft games in their Out Of The Box (OOTB) format as provided by Blizzard Entertainment, or their format as found after the installation of a patch provided directly to the entire player-base by Blizzard Entertainment. For ease of reference below, both original and patched game content of this type will collectively be referenced as OOTB. * Content in the Strategy Guide must be at least 50% original, i.e. their own work, explained further below. Strategy guides that obey the above rules are known as Compliant Articles. If a member's posted Strategy Guide is a Compliant Article they do get some protection rights on their content: * The author of a Compliant guide gets protection of first-come-first-serve. If another member posts a guide after the posting of the original one that has content at least 50% identical to the original, that duplicate content will be deleted and potentially the whole guide. Timing can be checked against the page Histories showing their publishing dates and status. If another member writing a guide wishes to mention information already contained within an existing Compliant guide, proper reference must be made to the original Guide that it came from. * A member who is not the author of a Compliant guide is not allowed to delete or rewrite any of the Guide's content if they do not agree with the main viewpoints of the guide, i.e. it does not comply to their own subjective view. Non-author members are, at most, allowed to add additional content around the original content of the author to give countering viewpoints for discussion to no more than 20% of the original guide, as long as it is written in a calm, respectful manner, not directly insulting or belittling the viewpoints of the author, or they can simply create their own guide. Minor corrections to spelling and grammar are allowed as long as the author's original core info is kept intact I'd be willing to write several of the General guides, as well as link my current one for the Heart of the Swarm campaign upgrades, into that Strategy Guide List page. Kiljaedenas (talk) 00:07, February 24, 2015 (UTC) In regards to the above proposal: *I'm a bit iffy about linking strategy from individual game articles, as there's only two games bar expansions (SC1, SC2), and general strategies as described don't really need a separation. For instance, in a (insert strategy here) article, I think it's much better to divide the article between games, and edit as such (based on unit presence for instance). I think it would serve much better to have a strategy link on the homepage, and keep the strategy links that already exist on race pages. Anything pertaining to strategy in unit articles can be from their description (e.g. "hydralisks are good at here), with the strategy being an internal link). *I strongly disagree with the concept of ownership of work. Since a wiki is a collaborative format, no user should be able to claim ownership over any main space article. If there's disagreement with strategies presented in an article, either it should be written to accommodate different viewpoints, or a middleground should be found. This can include not taking a stance (and indeed, no strategy should be presented as being definitive). *Creating individual guides is a no-go, as in, there's no precedent for "strategy x by user y." Again, collaborative. We went through the same drama with the timeline retcon - an attempt to present the original timeline besides the new dates was a disaster, and was rightly abandoned (Psi can attest to this). If a strategy viewpoint/stance has reached the stage of mutual exclusivity, then it really is a fan work. *No sub-strategies pages, e.g. no "hydralisk strategy" article. Anything there should be under its own unit article. Strategies should be general, and not separated from a host article (e.g. mission pages should have the walkthrough featured on said page).--Hawki (talk) 01:00, February 24, 2015 (UTC) For Hawki's responses: * For linking strategy guides to individual games, I believe there are enough differences in the latent abilities and gameplay mechanics, as well as different available units, to warrant it. Perhaps the division should just be between SC1 and SC2 then; the expansions within their individual sets (e.g. Brood War for SC1, HotS for SC2) are similar enough to each other to not warrant separation, but there are quite a few differences with all three races all over the place between SC1 and SC2. Multiple SC1 strategies would not work in SC2 and vice versa. * For ownership of work, I'm trying to find a good blend between fan-made content and collaborative content. Yes, someone's strategy guide is ultimately their own subjective opinion and not true canon, so it is a type of fan-made content, but it is what I consider a unique type when compared to fictional stories, art, etc...and given that it is a subjective opinion it is highly likely that someone else will disagree with it. If someone who disagrees with a user's viewpoint in a strategy comes in and just rewrites that author's guide to their own opinions that is a grave insult and slap in the face to the author; that is the exact opposite of collaborative. People have the access to edit the personal talk pages of users and their fan-made content there, but unless someone posts something that's blatantly offensive we don't go doing that do we? We respect their subjective opinions and creations, and I believe we need to do the same for strategy guides. Hence the concept of author ownership. There's only so many different ways that SC armies can be built and controlled so we shouldn't see a massive snowball of articles. Also, on your later comment of individual guides being a no-go as there is no precedent, please remember that "there is no precedent" does not equal "bad, don't do". It simply means "this is a new concept, let's discuss the options, adapt our thinking, and come up with a new way of doing things that can let everyone grow and learn". * For your comment on no sub-strategy articles such as no "hydralisk strategy"...sure, I didn't mention that kind, and I can agree with not going that granular down to specific unit use as indeed we can put those kinds of suggestions on the main unit pages. When I think of "specific" strategy guides as I mentioned above, I'm thinking more along the lines of: - Tactical analysis on the unique upgrades available in the Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm campaigns - Tactical analysis on each race's overall strengths and weaknesses - PvP build sequences for each race - General tips and tricks for each race Kiljaedenas (talk) 17:39, February 24, 2015 (UTC) Per above points: *If someone rewrites a user's content...I'm sorry, but that happens all the time. I've rewritten users' content, others have rewritten mine. There's no reason to give special exception to strategy articles. Again, if a strategy article is written to such an extent that a user flat out disagrees with it, then while arbitrarily rewriting it can be iffy, it does beg the question as to why it's here if it's to such an extent where flat out disagreeing is a factor. Now if a strategy guide is linked to an author's page, then yes, I'd say the author has ownership of their work, but if a strategy article is in the general user space, it's up for grabs, just like any other article. *I was just reiterating my stance on sub-articles, I know you didn't mention them. However, concerning the points "along the lines of," most of them can be incorporated into strategy articles - stuff like general analysis and general tips can go into something like "X strategy" (X being the race in question), and PvP build sequences can go into the already existing "X vs. Y" gameplay pages. The upgrade analysis...no. I see you've done the same thing for WoL, and looking at it, I can't call it any more than subjective analysis. We've already got upgrades listed on respective pages, if we're in the realm of arbitrarily declaring certain tactics/upgrades/units to be superior, then we've lost any pretense of impartiality. It is not our job to tell users how to play, only to provide the facts. So while general strategy articles is something I can get behind, such analyses are not. *Precedent doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen, but I am reminded of precedent when such a thing happened before. It's the same philosophy we've taken when dealing with lore contradictions (e.g. the Korhal casualty figure), to not take a stance if they're mutually exclusive. The upgrade pages are the definition of mutually exclusive because it's promoting a strategy that's mutually exclusive to any disagreement. So, in short: *Strategy articles/pages: Yes. *Analyses: No.--Hawki (talk) 22:04, February 24, 2015 (UTC) Ugh, I can see I'm getting nowhere with you Hawki. If you want to hyper-control this wiki, fine, go ahead. I'm done with it. In the roughly 20 or so wikis I've dealt with you are the most stubborn and inflexible administrator I have ever seen by a massive margin. Do everyone a favor and never become the administrator of another wiki. Your arguments are inflexible and don't understand the logic of what I am saying, which I thought was quite clear. You will never see any updates from me on this Starcraft wiki again. I have better uses for my time, and other areas to go where they're more open minded. Kiljaedenas (talk) 22:37, February 24, 2015 (UTC)